Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ashraf S/O Kayyum Shaikh, Amravati vs The Government Of India, Mumbai Through ... on 26 November, 2019

Author: Sunil B. Shukre

Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Rohit B. Deo

  1                                                                         wp687o f2018

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 687 OF 2018


 Ashraf s/o. Kayyum Shaikh,
 aged about 31 yrs, Occ. Business,
 r/o. 6/9 SRP Camp, New Quarter
 Chandur Railway Road,
 Amravati, Tah. Dist.Amravati                                           ...PETITIONER

          ...V E R S U S...


 1        The Government of India,
          Ministry of Electronics and Information
          Technology (MeitY), Unique
          Identification Authority of India,
          Regional Office, 7th Floor, MTNL Telephone
          Exchange, G.D. Somani Marg,
          Cuffee Parade, Mumbai 400069
          through its Deputy Director

 2        The Collector, Amravati.

 3        The Mahaonline Limited,
          5th Floor, trade Word, D.Wing,
          Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg,
          Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013
          through its Head,
          Citizen Services Delivery.
                ...RESPONDENTS
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for petitioner.
             Mr. N.R. Patil, Addl. GP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             CORAM:           SUNIL B. SHUKRE, &
                                                              ROHIT B. DEO, JJ.

DATE:26.11.2019.

Oral Judgment :(Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 21:24:17 ::: 2 wp687o f2018 Heard. Rule. Heard finally by consent.

2 We find that the blacklisting of the petitioner has been done by respondent No. 1 without giving any opportunity of hearing to him. Such an action on the part of respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained in the eye of law, it being violative of principles of natural justice. Therefore, action of blacklisting of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Reconciliation Committee for its fresh consideration in accordance with law. Petitioner shall appear before the Reconciliation Committee on the date fixed by it for which purpose Reconciliation Committee shall issue notice to the petitioner giving him at least time of two weeks to appear before it. Hearing shall be held by the Reconciliation Committee on any date as per its convenience in the month of December, 2019 and the decision shall be taken by it within four weeks from the date of appearance of petitioner before the Reconciliation Committee. 3 Rule accordingly. No costs.

                               JUDGE                               JUDGE

 Belkhede




::: Uploaded on - 02/12/2019                     ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 21:24:17 :::